Record Labels Continue Their Stand Against Parodies
from the let-it-go dept
Following the news earlier this week that Universal Music was threatening to sue Bank of America over a parody song a staff member performed at a company meeting, it seems that other labels have their own problems with the concept. Boing Boing points us to news that EMI has threatened legal action against a group of sports fans who put together a booklet of modified parody lyrics to various famous songs to build up some fan spirit. It's hard to see how this could possibly be seen as damaging in anyway to EMI or its artists, but an EMI exec recently pointed out, they don't care about the business issues when making decisions about who to sue. In other words, they threaten to sue because they can, not because it's a good idea -- which should be the point where the company recognizes that the lawyers have taken over for the business people and the company is no longer in good hands. There's nothing wrong with lawyers in business positions, but they need to make business decisions, not legal ones. If the move serves no good business purpose, and has a high likelihood of creating serious ill will towards the company (and its artists), why would the company continue to do it?
25 Comments | Leave a Comment..
- Rep. Doyle Introduces Bill To Provide Public Access To Publicly Funded Research
- Beware Of Those Who Claim They're 'Saving The Culture Business' When They're Really Protecting Those Who Strip Artists Of Rights
- The Rise Of The 'Professional Amateur' And The Fall Of Gated, Exclusionary 'Clubs'
- OK Go Shows, Once Again, How Content Is Advertising... And How There Are Many Revenue Streams For Musicians
- We're Living In the Most Creative Time In History





Reader Comments (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
Well...Ex---cu-use Me!
NO perpective on extra publicity generated for Songs
NO perspective on damage to Artist's karma by fans, who do not know any better
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Well...Ex---cu-use Me!
NO perpective on extra publicity generated for Songs
NO perspective on damage to Artist's karma by fans, who do not know any better
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Well...Ex---cu-use Me!
"As Oscar Wilde is supposed to have said, the only thing worse than being talked about is not to be talked about at all" (quote taken from Wikipedia) This can be taken in 2 ways, since the only worse thing you can do with a song is not to sing/play/buy it, even a parody should be a good thing ... And secondly, maybe we should just ignore all these stupid court cases since giving them the publicity they crave only plays into their hands.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Well...Ex---cu-use Me!
is anything they try to do!
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Mad Magazine gets around the issue by not using the music and telling people what tune the the lyrics should be sung to. They had a court decsion to fall back on.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Here's one for you, then.
It's fun to $#@! with the
R - I - A - A
They hate everything
That you want to enjoy
You'll pay twice, little girls and boys...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Adam Sandler and Jimmy Fallon better hide
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Don't buy
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Stupid
Duh maybe the artist is jealous because the parody is better than what they wrote.
Who cares stop the MADNESS... Put the law suits away and stop taking up valuable assets in the court system.
RIAA can you say "DEE DEE DEE" a quote from Carlos Mencia
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Not just
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Next weeks news...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
no they can't.
No, they can't...they're probably afraid it would be some kind of infringement...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Next weeks news...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Stop bitching and take a stance
So if you dont like their tactics or the way they conduct business. DON'T DO BUSINESS with them. every time you do you are pretty much saying I agree with your business tactics.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
I did take a stance...
Even if I find a band on those labels that I like (a good recent example is system of a down) I will pirate the albums, and if I really like the band, I will send them money anonymously. I document everthing I do with regards to that. If the RIAA comes after me, I'll make them look really bad regardless whether I win or lose, because I have every bit of evidence I need to prove that my "piracy" was motivated by a boycott, a stand on principles, and not by any desire for "theft"
It's gonna be pretty hard for them to rationalize that "I simply didn't want to spend my money on their product" since I generally send the band 10 times what they would get for the legitimate sales. I think that proves my point that I DO care about the artist (being one myself). just not a bunch of lawyer a-holes who have no clue how to make good music. they don't deserve my money, and they don't ever get a dime of it.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Just do
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Record Labels Continue Their Stand Against Parodie
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Record Labels Continue Their Stand Against Par
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
If General Motors wrote new lyrics for Paul McCartney's "Yesterday" ("Chevrolet ... all I want is a new Chevrolet ...") for a commercial, there would likewise be smacked down.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Weird Al
OK, just to clear things up, here's the real poop from the Weird Al FAQ.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Fernando
Had it been intended for public view, UM would have a right to sue; the fact that it was made public, however, does not give them that right.
To compare this to home videos, it would be like somebody videotaping you performing karaoke at a bar, then you being sued when they upload that video to youtube.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Add Your Comment